SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(J&K) 23

A.K.GOEL
Vikram Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of J. &K. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: M.K. Bhardwaj
Advocate For Respondent: D.C. Raina

PER ARUN KUMAR GOEL, JUDGE

1. This petition has been taken up with the consent of parties for final disposal keeping in view the controversy involved in it. It may also be noticed that Shri D. C. Raina, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 stated that looking to the factual position of this case it can be disposed of without reply on the part of his client.

2. It may be noted here that SRO 126 dated 28th June, 1994 describes reserved categores notified by the State Government. Rule 9 and Proviso to Rule 30 thereof prescribed that a person may be declared socially and educationally backward under different categories as notified by the State Government. One such notified category is resident of backward area.™ Prior to 16th July198 income criteria was Rs.1 Lakh, thus where the income was more than Rs.1 Lakh such person was not entitled to the benefits as available under SR0126 (Supra).

3. SRO 126 dated 28th June, 1994 came to be amended vide SRO No: 219 dated 16th July198 which is to the following effect.

"GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT

Notification

Srinagar, the 16th July, 1998.

SRO-219. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 124 a












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top